June 11, 2004
First and 10 Again as Stadium Debate Generates Another TV Ad
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Generally speaking, political advertising wars are limited to political campaigns. But the latest battle of the airways is being waged between opponents of a new football stadium on the West Side - a coalition of residents and elected officials, bankrolled by the owners of Madison Square Garden - and those who want a stadium, namely, the New York Jets and their supporters.
Last week, both sides laid out hundreds of thousands of dollars each on television commercials to sway public opinion. And yesterday came the first rebuttal.
The ads that began last week by those opposed to the $1.4 billion, 75,000-seat stadium denounce the idea. "What could New York City do with $600 million?'' the narrator says as images of schoolchildren and the elderly roll by. "Rebuild our schools. Put a computer in every classroom or reopen neighborhood fire stations. With $600 million, we could improve community health clinics and offer more affordable care to New Yorkers. Or step up the rebirth of Lower Manhattan. So here's the choice: Invest $600 million in neighborhoods or spend it on a West Side stadium for the Jets. Contact us today, and say no to a West Side stadium.''
The stadium, supported by the mayor and the governor, is part of the Bloomberg administration's plan to expand the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and develop the far West Side. The Jets are putting up $800 million for construction, while state and city officials have agreed to provide $600 million.Yesterday, the Jets smacked back with, well, an ad about an ad. Deriding the opponents' ad as "simply untrue," it will run on all local television stations in New York City and Albany.
"The new far West Side sports and convention center would actually generate $32 million a year more in new revenue to the city and state than it costs," the narrator says as the script rolls by. "The Jets pay $800 million, and the dual-use facility will attract millions in new convention business to the city. Who's behind these misleading ads? Cablevision, owners of Madison Square Garden. They'll do anything to block a new sports and convention center."
The New York Association for Better Choices, the coalition opposed to the stadium, dismissed the new volley by the Jets. "The Jets' attack ad attempts to obscure that the vast majority of New Yorkers oppose spending at least $600 million in taxpayer money for the most expensive football stadium in history," said Whit Clay, a spokesman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/nyregion/11stadium.html?pagewanted=print&position=
jake · 2004-06-11
June 11, 2004 First and 10 Again as Stadium Debate Generates Another TV Ad By JENNIFER STEINHAUER Generally speaking, political advertising wars are limited to political campaigns. But the latest battle of the airways is being waged between opponents of a new football stadium on the West Side - a coalition of residents and elected officials, bankrolled by the owners of Madison Square Garden - and those who want a stadium, namely, the New York Jets and their supporters. Last week, both sides laid out hundreds of thousands of dollars each on television commercials to sway public opinion. And yesterday came the first rebuttal. The ads that began last week by those opposed to the $1.4 billion, 75,000-seat stadium denounce the idea. "What could New York City do with $600 million?'' the narrator says as images of schoolchildren and the elderly roll by. "Rebuild our schools. Put a computer in every classroom or reopen neighborhood fire stations. With $600 million, we could improve community health clinics and offer more affordable care to New Yorkers. Or step up the rebirth of Lower Manhattan. So here's the choice: Invest $600 million in neighborhoods or spend it on a West Side stadium for the Jets. Contact us today, and say no to a West Side stadium.'' The stadium, supported by the mayor and the governor, is part of the Bloomberg administration's plan to expand the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and develop the far West Side. The Jets are putting up $800 million for construction, while state and city officials have agreed to provide $600 million.Yesterday, the Jets smacked back with, well, an ad about an ad. Deriding the opponents' ad as "simply untrue," it will run on all local television stations in New York City and Albany. "The new far West Side sports and convention center would actually generate $32 million a year more in new revenue to the city and state than it costs," the narrator says as the script rolls by. "The Jets pay $800 million, and the dual-use facility will attract millions in new convention business to the city. Who's behind these misleading ads? Cablevision, owners of Madison Square Garden. They'll do anything to block a new sports and convention center." The New York Association for Better Choices, the coalition opposed to the stadium, dismissed the new volley by the Jets. "The Jets' attack ad attempts to obscure that the vast majority of New Yorkers oppose spending at least $600 million in taxpayer money for the most expensive football stadium in history," said Whit Clay, a spokesman.NYT: 1st & Ten
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/nyregion/11stadium.html?pagewanted=print&position=